Systems and methods for classification of messaging entities
Methods and systems for operation upon one or more data processors for assigning a reputation to a messaging entity. A method can include receiving data that identifies one or more characteristics related to a messaging entity's communication. A reputation score is determined based upon the received identification data. The determined reputation score is indicative of reputation of the messaging entity. The determined reputation score is used in deciding what action is to be taken with respect to a communication associated with the messaging entity.
Latest McAfee, Inc. Patents:
This application is a continuation application of, and claims priority to, pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/142,943, entitled “Systems and Methods for Classification of Messaging Entities,” which was filed on Jun. 2, 2005; which application claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/625,507 (entitled “Classification of Messaging Entities”) filed on Nov. 5, 2004.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/142,943, entitled “Systems and Methods for Classification of Messaging Entities,” which was filed on Jun. 2, 2005 is a continuation-in-part of, and claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/093,553 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,941,467), entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADAPTIVE MESSAGE INTERROGATION THROUGH MULTIPLE QUEUES;” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/094,211 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,458,098), entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SECURITY;” and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/094,266 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,124,438), entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANOMALY DETECTION IN PATTERNS OF MONITORED COMMUNICATIONS,” all filed on Mar. 8, 2002.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/142,943, entitled “Systems and Methods for Classification of Messaging Entities,” which was filed on Jun. 2, 2005 is also a continuation-in-part of, and claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/361,091 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,096,498), filed Feb. 7, 2003, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MESSAGE THREAT MANAGEMENT;” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/373,325 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,213,260), filed Feb. 24, 2003, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UPSTREAM THREAT PUSHBACK;” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/361,067 (now abandoned), filed Feb. 7, 2003, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED WHITELISTING IN MONITORED COMMUNICATIONS;” and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/384,924 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,694,128), filed Mar. 6, 2003, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION DELIVERY.” The disclosures of the foregoing applications and patents are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARYThis document relates generally to systems and methods for processing communications and more particularly to systems and methods for filtering communications.
In the anti-spam industry, spammers use various creative means for evading detection by spam filters. Accordingly, spam filter designers adopt a strategy of combining various detection techniques in their filters.
Current tools for message sender analysis include IP blacklists (sometimes called real-time blacklists (RBLs)) and IP whitelists (real-time whitelists (RWLs)). Whitelists and blacklists certainly add value to the spam classification process; however, whitelists and blacklists are inherently limited to providing a binary-type (YES/NO) response to each query. In contrast, a reputation system has the ability to express an opinion of a sender in terms of a scalar number in some defined range. Thus, where blacklists and whitelists are limited to “black and white” responses, a reputation system can express “shades of gray” in its response.
In accordance with the teachings disclosed herein, methods and systems are provided for operation upon one or more data processors for assigning a reputation to a messaging entity. A method can include receiving data that identifies one or more characteristics related to a messaging entity's communication. A reputation score is determined based upon the received identification data. The determined reputation score is indicative of reputation of the messaging entity. The determined reputation score is used in deciding what action is to be taken with respect to a communication associated with the messaging entity.
The system 30 uses a filtering system 60 and a reputation system 70 to help process communications from the messaging entities 50. The filtering system 60 uses the reputation system 70 to help determine what filtering action (if any) should be taken upon the messaging entities' communications. For example, the communication may be determined to be from a reputable source and thus the communication should not be filtered.
The filtering system 60 identifies at 62 one or more message characteristics associated with a received communication and provides that identification information to the reputation system 70. The reputation system 70 evaluates the reputation by calculating probabilities that the identified message characteristic(s) exhibit certain qualities. An overall reputation score is determined based upon the calculated probabilities and is provided to the filtering system 60.
The filtering system 60 examines at 64 the reputation score in order to determine what action should be taken for the sender's communication (such as whether the communication transmission should be delivered to the communication's designated recipient located within a message receiving system 80). The filtering system 60 could decide that a communication should be handled differently based in whole or in part upon the reputation scored that was provided by the reputation system 70. As an illustration, a communication may be determined to be from a non-reputable sender and thus the communication should be handled as Spain (e.g., deleted, quarantined, etc.).
Reputation systems may be configured in many different ways in order to assist a filtering system. For example, a reputation system 70 can be located externally or internally relative to the filtering system 60 depending upon the situation at hand. As another example,
The system's configuration 90 could also, as shown in
For each quality/criterion Ci, periodic (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) sampling exercises can be performed to recalculate P (NR|Ci). A sampling exercise may include selecting a random sample set S of N senders for which quality/criterion Ci is known to be true. The senders in the sample are then sorted into one of the following sets: reputable (R), non-reputable (NR) or unknown (U). NR is the number of senders in the sample that are reputable senders, NNR is the number of senders that are non-reputable senders, etc. Then, P (NR|Ci) and P (R|Ci) are estimated using the formulas:
For this purpose, N=30 was determined to be a large enough sample size to achieve an accurate estimate of P(NR|Ci) and P(R|Ci) for each quality/criterion Ci.
After calculating P (NR|Ci) and P (R|Ci) for all criteria, the computed probabilities are used to calculate an aggregate non-reputable probability 94, PNR, and an aggregate reputable sender probability 96, PR, for each sender in the reputation space. These probabilities can be calculated using the formulas:
In experimentation, the above formulas appeared to behave very well for a wide range of input criteria combinations, and in practice their behavior appears to be similar to the behavior of the formula for correctly computing naïve joint conditional probabilities of “non-reputable” and “reputable” behavior for the input criteria.
After calculating PNR and PR for each sender, a reputation score is calculated for that sender using the following reputation function:
ƒ(PNR,PR)=(c1+c2PNR+c2PR+c3PNR2+c3PR2+c4PNRPR+c5PNR3+c5PR3+c6PNRPR2+c6PNR2PR)((PNR−PR)3+c7(PNR−PR))
where
-
- c1=86.50
- c2=−193.45
- c3=−35.19
- c4=581.09
- C5=234.81
- c6=−233.18
- c7=0.51
It should be understood that different functions can act as a reputation score determinator 98 and can be expressed in many different forms in addition to a functional expression. As an illustration,FIG. 3 depicts at 100 a tabular form for determining reputation scores. The table shows reputation scores produced by the above function, based on values of PNR and PR as they each vary between 0.0 and 1.0. For example as shown at 110, a reputation score of 53 is obtained for the combination of PNR=0.9 and PR=0.2. This reputation score is a relatively high indicator that the sender should not be considered reputable. A reputation score of 0 is obtained if PNR and PR are the same (e.g., the reputation score is 0 if PNR=0.7 and PR=0.7 as shown at 120). A reputation score can have a negative value to indicate that a sender is relatively reputable as determined when PR is greater than PNR. For example, if PNR=0.5 and PR=0.8 as shown at 130, then the reputation score is −12.
Reputation scores can be shown graphically as depicted in
As shown in these examples, reputation scores can be numeric reputations that are assigned to messaging entities based on characteristics of a communication (e.g., messaging entity characteristic(s)) and/or a messaging entity's behavior. Numeric reputations can fluctuate between a continuous spectrum of reputable and non-reputable classifications. However, reputations may be non-numeric, such as by having textual, or multiple level textual categories.
After calculating an aggregate non-reputable probability and an aggregate reputable probability for each sender, a reputation score is calculated at 230 for that sender using a reputation function. At step 240, the sender's reputation score is distributed locally and/or to one or more systems to evaluate a communication associated with the sender. As an illustration, reputation scores can be distributed to a filtering system. With the reputation score, the filtering system can choose to take an action on the transmission based on the range the sender reputation score falls into. For unreputable senders, a filtering system can choose to drop the transmission (e.g., silently), save it in a quarantine area, or flag the transmission as suspicious. In addition, a filter system can choose to apply such actions to all future transmissions from this sender for a specified period of time, without requiring new lookup queries to be made to the reputation system. For reputable senders, a filtering system can similarly apply actions to the transmissions to allow them to bypass all or certain filtering techniques that cause significant processing, network, or storage overhead for the filtering system.
It should be understood that similar to the other processing flows described herein, the processing and the order of the processing may be altered, modified and/or augmented and still achieve the desired outcome. For example, an optional addition to the step of extracting unique identifying information about the sender of the transmission would be to use sender authentication techniques to authenticate certain parts of the transmission, such as the purported sending domain name in the header of the message, to unforgeable information about the sender, such as the IP address the transmission originated from. This process can allow the filtering system to perform lookups on the reputation system by querying for information that can potentially be forged, had it not been authenticated, such as a domain name or email address. If such domain or address has a positive reputation, the transmission can be delivered directly to the recipient system bypassing all or some filtering techniques. If it has a negative reputation, the filtering system can choose to drop the transmission, save it in a quarantine area, or flag it as suspicious.
Many different types of sender authentication techniques can be used, such as the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) technique. SPF is a protocol by which domain owners publish DNS records that indicate which IP addresses are allowed to send mail on behalf of a given domain. As other non-limiting examples, SenderID or DomainKeys can be used as sender authentication techniques.
As another example, many different types of criteria may be used in processing a sender's communication.
The non-reputable criteria 300 and reputable criteria 310 help to distinguish non-reputable senders and reputable senders. A set of criteria can change often without significantly affecting the reputation scores produced using this scoring technique. As an illustration within the context of SPAM identification, the following is a list of spamminess criteria that could be used in the reputation scoring of a message sender. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, and can be adapted to include other criteria or remove criteria based upon observed behavior.
-
- 1. Mean Spam Score: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if a mean spam profiler score of transmissions that it sends exceeds some threshold, W.
- 2. RDNS Lookup Failure: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if reverse domain name system (RDNS) queries for its IP addresses fail.
- 3. RBL Membership: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is included in a real-time blackhole list (RBL). (Note: multiple RBLs may be used. Each RBL can constitute a separate testing criterion.)
- 4. Mail Volume: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if its average (mean or median) transmission volume exceeds a threshold, X, where X is measured in transmissions over a period of time (such as, e.g., a day, week, or month). (Note: multiple average volumes over multiple time periods may be used, and each average volume can constitute a separate testing criterion.)
- 5. Mail Burstiness/Sending History: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if its average (mean or median) transmission traffic pattern burstiness (defined by the number of active sending sub-periods within a larger time period, e.g., number of active sending hours in a day or number of active sending days in a month) is less than some threshold, Y, where Y is measured in sub-periods per period. (Note: multiple average burstiness measures over multiple time periods may be used, and each average burstiness measure can constitute a separate testing criterion.)
- 6. Mail Breadth: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if its average (mean or median) transmission traffic breadth (as defined by the percentage of systems that receive transmissions from the same sender during a period of time (such as, e.g., a day, week, or month)) exceeds some threshold, Z. (Note: multiple average breadths over multiple time periods may be used, and each average breadth measure can constitute a separate testing criterion.)
- 7. Malware Activity: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is known to have delivered one or more malware codes (such as, e.g., viruses, spyware, intrusion code, etc) during a measurement period (e.g., a day, week, or month).
- 8. Type of Address: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is known to be dynamically assigned to dial-up or broadband dynamic host control protocol (DHCP) clients by an internet service provider (ISP).
- 9. CIDR Block Spamminess: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if its IP addresses are known to exist within classless inter-domain routing (CIDR) blocks that contain predominantly “non-reputable” IP addresses.
- 10. Human Feedback: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is reported to have sent undesirable transmissions by people analyzing the content and other characteristics of those transmissions.
- 11. Spain Trap Feedback: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is sending transmissions to accounts that have been declared as spamtraps and as such are not supposed to receive any legitimate transmissions.
- 12. Bounceback Feedback: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is sending bounceback transmissions or transmissions to accounts that do not exist on the destination system.
- 13. Legislation/Standards Conformance: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is not conforming to laws, regulations, and well-established standards of transmission behavior in the countries of operation of either the sender and/or the recipient of the transmissions.
- 14. Continuity of Operation: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it has not operated at that sending location longer than some threshold Z.
- 15. Responsiveness to Recipient Demands: A sender is declared “non-reputable” if it is not responding in a reasonable timeframe to legitimate demands of the recipients to terminate their relationship with the sender to not receive any more transmissions from them.
The following is a list of “reputable” criteria that could be used in determining the “reputability” of a sender. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, and can be adapted to include other criteria or remove criteria based upon observed behavior.
-
- 1. Mean Spam Score: A sender is declared “reputable” if the mean spam profiler score of transmissions that it sends falls below some threshold, W.
- 2. Human Feedback: A sender is declared “reputable” if it is reported to have sent only legitimate transmissions by people analyzing transmission flows from that sender, in conjunction with the reputation of the organization that owns those sending stations.
After computing a reputation grade for each sender in the universe of senders, a reputation classification can be made available via a communication protocol that can be interpreted by the queriers that make use of the reputation system (e.g., DNS, HTTP, etc). As shown in
An example of a communication protocol that can be used is a domain name system (DNS) server which can respond with a return value in the form of an IP address: 172.x.y.z. The IP address can be encoded using the formula:
The reputation of the queried sender can be deciphered from the return value as follows:
rep=(−1)2-x×(256y+z)
Therefore, when x=0, the returned reputation is a positive number, and when x=1, the returned reputation is a negative number. The absolute value of the reputation is determined by the values of y and z. This encoding scheme enables the server to return via the DNS protocol reputation values within the range [−65535, 65535]. It also leaves seven (7) unused bits, namely the seven high-order bits of x. These bits can be reserved for extensions to the reputation system. (For example, the age of a reputation score may be communicated back to the querier.)
The systems and methods disclosed herein may be implemented on various types of computer architectures, such as for example on different types of networked environments. As an illustration,
Local clients 430 can access application servers 420 and shared data storage 410 via the local communication network. External clients 480 can access external application servers 470 via the Internet 460. In instances where a local server 420 or a local client 430 requires access to an external server 470 or where an external client 480 or an external server 470 requires access to a local server 420, electronic communications in the appropriate protocol for a given application server flow through “always open” ports of firewall system 440.
A system 30 as disclosed herein may be located in a hardware device or on one or more servers connected to the local communication network such as Ethernet 480 and logically interposed between the firewall system 440 and the local servers 420 and clients 430. Application-related electronic communications attempting to enter or leave the local communications network through the firewall system 440 are routed to the system 30.
In the example of
System 30 could be used to handle many different types of e-mail and its variety of protocols that are used for e-mail transmission, delivery and processing including SMTP and POP3. These protocols refer, respectively, to standards for communicating e-mail messages between servers and for server-client communication related to e-mail messages. These protocols are defined respectively in particular RFC's (Request for Comments) promulgated by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). The SMTP protocol is defined in RFC 821, and the POP3 protocol is defined in RFC 1939.
Since the inception of these standards, various needs have evolved in the field of e-mail leading to the development of further standards including enhancements or additional protocols. For instance, various enhancements have evolved to the SMTP standards leading to the evolution of extended SMTP. Examples of extensions may be seen in (1) RFC 1869 that defines a framework for extending the SMTP service by defining a means whereby a server SMTP can inform a client SMTP as to the service extensions it supports and in (2) RFC 1891 that defines an extension to the SMTP service, which allows an SMTP client to specify (a) that delivery status notifications (DSNs) should be generated under certain conditions, (b) whether such notifications should return the contents of the message, and (c) additional information, to be returned with a DSN, that allows the sender to identify both the recipient(s) for which the DSN was issued, and the transaction in which the original message was sent. In addition, the IMAP protocol has evolved as an alternative to POP3 that supports more advanced interactions between e-mail servers and clients. This protocol is described in RFC 2060.
Other communication mechanisms are also widely used over networks. These communication mechanisms include, but are not limited to, Voice Over IP (VoIP) and Instant Messaging. VoIP is used in IP telephony to provide a set of facilities for managing the delivery of voice information using the Internet Protocol (IP). Instant Messaging is a type of communication involving a client which hooks up to an instant messaging service that delivers communications (e.g., conversations) in realtime.
As the Internet has become more widely used, it has also created new troubles for users. In particular, the amount of spam received by individual users has increased dramatically in the recent past. Spam, as used in this specification, refers to any communication receipt of which is either unsolicited or not desired by its recipient. A system and method can be configured as disclosed herein to address these types of unsolicited or undesired communications. This can be helpful in that e-mail spamming consumes corporate resources and impacts productivity.
The systems and methods disclosed herein are presented only by way of example and are not meant to limit the scope of the invention. Other variations of the systems and methods described above will be apparent to those skilled in the art and as such are considered to be within the scope of the invention. For example, using the systems and methods of sender classification described herein, a reputation system can be configured for use in training and tuning of external filtering techniques. Such techniques may include Bayesian, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and other statistical content filtering techniques, as well as signature-based techniques such as distributed bulk message identification and message clustering-type techniques. The training strategies for such techniques can require sets of classified legitimate and unwanted transmissions, which can be provided to the trainer by classifying streams of transmissions based on the reputation scores of their senders. Transmissions from senders classified as un-reputable can be provided to the filtering system trainer as unwanted, and the wanted transmissions can be taken from the stream sent by the legitimate senders.
As an illustration, methods and systems can be configured to perform tuning and training of filtering systems utilizing reputation scores of senders of transmissions in sets of trainable transmissions. At least one characteristic is identified about transmissions from senders. The identifying of at least one characteristic can include extracting unique identifying information about the transmissions (e.g., information about the senders of the transmissions), or authenticating unique identifying information about the transmissions, or combinations thereof. Queries are sent to a reputation system and scores are received representing reputations of the senders. Transmissions are classified into multiple categories based on a range a sender's reputation score falls into. Transmissions and their classification categories are passed on to a trainer of another filtering system to be used for optimization of the filtering system.
As another example, methods and systems can be configured to perform filtering of groups of transmissions utilizing reputation scores of senders of transmissions. Multiple transmissions can be grouped together based on content similarities or similarities in transmission sender behavior. At least one characteristic can be identified about each transmission in the groupings. The identifying of at least one characteristic can include extracting unique identifying information about the transmission (e.g., information about the sender of a transmission), or authenticating unique identifying information about the transmission, or combinations thereof. A query can be sent to the reputation system and receive a score representing reputation of each sender. Groups of transmissions can be classified based on the percentage of reputable and non-reputable senders in the group.
As another example of the wide variations of the disclosed systems and methods, different techniques can be used for computation of joint conditional probabilities. More specifically, different mathematical techniques can be used for computing the aggregate non-reputable sender probability, PNR, and the aggregate reputable sender probability, PR, for each sender in the reputation space. As an illustration, two techniques are described. Both techniques use P (NR|Ci) and P (R|Ci), the conditional probabilities of non-reputable and reputable behavior, for each testing criterion Ci. The first technique makes the assumption that all testing criteria are independent. The second technique incorporates the assumption that the testing criteria are not independent. Therefore, the second technique is more difficult to carry out, but produces more accurate results.
1. Technique for Independent Testing Criteria
In the independent case, it is assumed that each criterion Ci is independent of all other criteria. The probability that the sender is non-reputable, PNR, is calculated using the following formula:
where j ranges over all criteria that apply to the sender in question. Similarly, the probability that the sender is a reputable sender, PR, is calculated using the following formula:
where j ranges over all criteria that apply to the sender in question.
2. Technique for Non-Independent Testing Criteria
In the dependent case, it is assumed that each criterion Ci is not independent of all other criteria, so the analysis must take into account “non-linear” interactions between criteria within their joint probability distribution. To find the correct values for PNR and PR for a given sender, a table is constructed to represent the entire joint probability distribution. Below is a sample table for a joint distribution of four qualities/criteria.
For a joint distribution of M criteria, there exist (2M−1) distinct cases within the joint probability distribution. Each case constitutes a particular combination of characteristics. The probability that the sender is non-reputable, PNR, is estimated for each case using the following technique. For each one of the (2M−1) cases, a random sample of N senders is gathered that exhibit the combination of characteristics described by that case. (For this purposes, N=30 is a large enough sample). Each sender is sorted into one of the following sets: reputable (R), non-reputable (NR) or unknown (U). NR is the number of sender in the sample that are reputable senders, NNR is the number of senders that are non-reputable senders, etc. Then, PNR and PR is estimated using the formulas:
The sampling of the IP addresses is repeated periodically (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly) to update the joint probability distribution.
It is further noted that the systems and methods disclosed herein may use articles of manufacture having data/digital signals conveyed via networks (e.g., local area network, wide area network, internet, etc.), fiber optic medium, carrier waves, wireless networks, etc. for communication with one or more data processing devices. The data/digital signals can carry any or all of the data disclosed herein that is provided to or from a device.
Additionally, the methods and systems described herein may be implemented on many different types of processing devices by program code comprising program instructions that are executable by one or more processors. The software program instructions may include source code, object code, machine code, or any other stored data that is operable to cause a processing system to perform methods described herein.
The systems' and methods' data (e.g., associations, mappings, etc.) may be stored and implemented in one or more different types of computer-implemented ways, such as different types of storage devices and programming constructs (e.g., data stores, RAM, ROM, Flash memory, flat files, databases, programming data structures, programming variables, IF-THEN (or similar type) statement constructs, etc.). It is noted that data structures describe formats for use in organizing and storing data in databases, programs, memory, or other computer-readable media for use by a computer program.
The systems and methods may be provided on many different types of computer-readable media including computer storage mechanisms (e.g., CD-ROM, diskette, RAM, flash memory, computer's hard drive, etc.) that contain instructions for use in execution by a processor to perform the methods' operations and implement the systems described herein.
The computer components, software modules, functions and data structures described herein may be connected directly or indirectly to each other in order to allow the flow of data needed for their operations. It is also noted that software instructions or a module can be implemented for example as a subroutine unit of code, or as a software function unit of code, or as an object (as in an object-oriented paradigm), or as an applet, or in a computer script language, or as another type of computer code or firmware. The software components and/or functionality may be located on a single device or distributed across multiple devices depending upon the situation at hand.
It should be understood that as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “a,” “an,” and “the” includes plural reference unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Also, as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “in” includes “in” and “on” unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Finally, as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meanings of “and” and “or” include both the conjunctive and disjunctive and may be used interchangeably unless the context clearly dictates otherwise; the phrase “exclusive or” may be used to indicate situation where only the disjunctive meaning may apply.
Claims
1. A method for operation upon one or more data processors to assign a reputation to a messaging entity, comprising:
- receiving data that identifies one or more characteristics related to a messaging entity's communication;
- for each criterion in a set of criteria for use in discriminating between reputable and non-reputable classifications: determining, by one or more data processors, whether the criterion applies to the messaging entity; determining, by the one or more data processors, a first conditional probability that the messaging entity is a non-reputable messaging entity in response to determining that the criterion applies to the messaging entity; and determining, by the one or more data processors, a second conditional probability that the messaging entity is a reputable messaging entity in response to determining that the criterion applies to the messaging entity;
- determining, by the one or more data processors, a first probability that is indicative of the messaging entity being a non-reputable messaging entity, the first probably being determined from a product of the first conditional probabilities;
- determining, by the one or more data processors, a second probability that is indicative of the messaging entity being a reputable messaging entity, the second probably being determined from a product of the second conditional probabilities;
- determining, by the one or more data processors, a reputation score from the first and second probabilities, wherein the determined reputation score is indicative of reputation of the messaging entity; and
- wherein the determined reputation score is used in deciding what action is to be taken with respect to a communication associated with the messaging entity.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the determined reputation score is distributed to one or more computer systems for use in filtering transmissions.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determined reputation score is locally distributed to a program for use in filtering transmissions.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein reputation scores include numeric, textual or categorical reputations that are assigned to messaging entities based on characteristics of the messaging entities and their behavior; wherein the numeric reputations fluctuate between a continuous spectrum of reputable and non-reputable classifications.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein a type of messaging entity to which reputations are assigned is a domain name, IP address, phone number, or individual electronic address or username representing an organization, computer, or individual user that transmits electronic messages.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the reputation of each messaging entity is encoded within the form of a 32-bit, dotted decimal IP address; said method further comprising:
- creating a domain name server (DNS) zone comprising the reputations of all messaging entities in a universe of messaging entities; and
- distributing reputations of messaging entities, via the DNS protocol, to one or more computer systems that make use of the reputations for their work.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of criteria are metrics selected from the group: a mean Spam Profiler score; a reverse domain name server lookup failure; membership on one or more real-time blacklists (RBLs); mail volume; mail burstiness; mail breadth; a geographic location; malware activity; a type of address; a classless inter-domain routing (CIDR) block comprising a number of internet protocol addresses identified to send spam; rate of user complaints; rate of honeypot detections; rate of undeliverable transmissions, identified conformance with laws, regulations, and well-established standards of transmission behavior; continuity of operation; responsiveness to recipient demands; and combinations thereof.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising encoding the messaging entity reputation within a 32-bit dotted decimal IP address according to a function comprising: IP = 172 · ( rep - rep 2 × rep ) · ( rep div 256 ) · ( rep mod 256 ).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein classifications of reputable and non-reputable are related to a tendency for an IP address to send unwanted transmissions or legitimate communication.
10. A method of performing transmission filtering utilizing reputation scores of transmission senders, the method comprising:
- identifying at least one characteristic about a transmission from a sender;
- performing a real-time query to a reputation system that includes the transmission characteristic;
- receiving a score representing reputation related to the sender of the transmission;
- performing an action on the transmission from the sender corresponding to the score range of the sender's reputation;
- wherein the reputation score of the sender is encoded within the form of a 32-bit, dotted decimal IP address;
- wherein the reputation system comprises a domain name server (DNS) zone comprising the reputations of all messaging entities in a universe of messaging entities; and
- wherein the DNS zone distributes reputations of messaging entities, via the DNS protocol, to querying computer systems for filtering messages.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the action includes at least one of the following actions: rejecting all further transmissions from that sender for a preset period of time or number of transmissions; silently dropping all further transmissions from that sender for a preset period of time or number of transmissions; quarantining all further transmissions from that sender for a preset period of time or number of transmissions; bypassing certain filtering tests for all further transmissions from that sender for a preset period of time or number of transmissions.
12. The method of claim 10, wherein the step of identifying at least one characteristic includes extracting unique identifying information about the transmission, or authenticating unique identifying information about the transmission, or combinations thereof.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the unique identifying information includes information about the sender of the transmission.
14. An article of manufacture comprising a physical computer readable storage device having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions operable to cause one or more data processing devices to perform operations comprising:
- receiving data that identifies one or more characteristics related to a messaging entity's communication;
- for each criterion in a set of criteria for use in discriminating between reputable and non-reputable classifications: determining whether the criterion applies to the messaging entity; determining a first conditional probability that the messaging entity is a non-reputable messaging entity in response to determining that the criterion applies to the messaging entity; and determining a second conditional probability that the messaging entity is a reputable messaging entity in response to determining that the criterion applies to the messaging entity;
- determining a first probability that is indicative of the messaging entity being a non-reputable messaging entity, the first probably being determined from a product of the first conditional probabilities;
- determining a second probability that is indicative of the messaging entity being a reputable messaging entity, the second probably being determined from a product of the second conditional probabilities; and
- determining a reputation score from the first and second probabilities, wherein the determined reputation score is indicative of reputation of the messaging entity; and
- wherein the determined reputation score is used in deciding what action is to be taken with respect to a communication associated with the messaging entity.
15. A system comprising:
- a data processing apparatus; and
- software stored on a computer storage apparatus and comprising instructions executable by the data processing apparatus and upon such execution cause the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
- receiving data that identifies one or more characteristics related to a messaging entity's communication;
- for each criterion in a set of criteria for use in discriminating between reputable and non-reputable classifications: determining, by one or more data processors, whether the criterion applies to the messaging entity; determining, by the one or more data processors, a first conditional probability that the messaging entity is a non-reputable messaging entity in response to determining that the criterion applies to the messaging entity; and determining, by the one or more data processors, a second conditional probability that the messaging entity is a reputable messaging entity in response to determining that the criterion applies to the messaging entity;
- determining, by the one or more data processors, a first probability that is indicative of the messaging entity being a non-reputable messaging entity, the first probably being determined from a product of the first conditional probabilities;
- determining, by the one or more data processors, a second probability that is indicative of the messaging entity being a reputable messaging entity, the second probably being determined from a product of the second conditional probabilities;
- determining, by the one or more data processors, a reputation score from the first and second probabilities, wherein the determined reputation score is indicative of reputation of the messaging entity; and
- wherein the determined reputation score is used in deciding what action is to be taken with respect to a communication associated with the messaging entity.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein classifications of reputable and non-reputable are related to a tendency for an IP address to send unwanted transmissions or legitimate communication.
17. The system of claim 15, wherein a type of messaging entity to which reputations are assigned is a domain name, IP address, phone number, or individual electronic address or username representing an organization, computer, or individual user that transmits electronic messages.
18. The system of claim 15, wherein reputation scores include numeric, textual or categorical reputations that are assigned to messaging entities based on characteristics of the messaging entities and their behavior; wherein the numeric reputations fluctuate between a continuous spectrum of reputable and non-reputable classifications.
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the determined reputation score is distributed to one or more computer systems for use in filtering transmissions.
20. The system of claim 15, wherein the determined reputation score is locally distributed to a program for use in filtering transmissions.
21. An article of manufacture comprising a physical computer readable storage device having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions operable to cause one or more data processing devices to perform operations comprising:
- identifying at least one characteristic about a transmission from a sender;
- performing a real-time query to a reputation system that includes the transmission characteristic;
- receiving a score representing reputation related to the sender of the transmission;
- performing an action on the transmission from the sender corresponding to the score range of the sender's reputation;
- wherein the reputation score of the sender is encoded within the form of a 32-bit, dotted decimal IP address;
- wherein the reputation system comprises a domain name server (DNS) zone comprising the reputations of all messaging entities in a universe of messaging entities; and
- wherein the DNS zone distributes reputations of messaging entities, via the DNS protocol, to querying computer systems for filtering messages.
4289930 | September 15, 1981 | Connolly et al. |
4384325 | May 17, 1983 | Slechta et al. |
4386416 | May 31, 1983 | Giltner et al. |
4532588 | July 30, 1985 | Foster |
4713780 | December 15, 1987 | Schultz et al. |
4754428 | June 28, 1988 | Schultz et al. |
4837798 | June 6, 1989 | Cohen et al. |
4853961 | August 1, 1989 | Pastor |
4864573 | September 5, 1989 | Horsten |
4951196 | August 21, 1990 | Jackson |
4975950 | December 4, 1990 | Lentz |
4979210 | December 18, 1990 | Nagata et al. |
5008814 | April 16, 1991 | Mathur |
5020059 | May 28, 1991 | Gorin et al. |
5051886 | September 24, 1991 | Kawaguchi et al. |
5054096 | October 1, 1991 | Beizer |
5105184 | April 14, 1992 | Pirani et al. |
5119465 | June 2, 1992 | Jack et al. |
5136690 | August 4, 1992 | Becker et al. |
5144557 | September 1, 1992 | Wang et al. |
5144659 | September 1, 1992 | Jones |
5144660 | September 1, 1992 | Rose |
5167011 | November 24, 1992 | Priest |
5210824 | May 11, 1993 | Putz et al. |
5210825 | May 11, 1993 | Kavaler |
5235642 | August 10, 1993 | Wobber et al. |
5239466 | August 24, 1993 | Morgan et al. |
5247661 | September 21, 1993 | Hager et al. |
5276869 | January 4, 1994 | Forrest et al. |
5278901 | January 11, 1994 | Shieh et al. |
5283887 | February 1, 1994 | Zachery |
5293250 | March 8, 1994 | Okumura et al. |
5313521 | May 17, 1994 | Torii et al. |
5319776 | June 7, 1994 | Hile et al. |
5355472 | October 11, 1994 | Lewis |
5367621 | November 22, 1994 | Cohen et al. |
5377354 | December 27, 1994 | Scannell et al. |
5379340 | January 3, 1995 | Overend et al. |
5379374 | January 3, 1995 | Ishizaki et al. |
5384848 | January 24, 1995 | Kikuchi |
5404231 | April 4, 1995 | Bloomfield |
5406557 | April 11, 1995 | Baudoin |
5414833 | May 9, 1995 | Hershey et al. |
5416842 | May 16, 1995 | Aziz |
5418908 | May 23, 1995 | Keller et al. |
5424724 | June 13, 1995 | Williams et al. |
5479411 | December 26, 1995 | Klein |
5481312 | January 2, 1996 | Cash et al. |
5483466 | January 9, 1996 | Kawahara et al. |
5485409 | January 16, 1996 | Gupta et al. |
5495610 | February 27, 1996 | Shing et al. |
5509074 | April 16, 1996 | Choudhury et al. |
5511122 | April 23, 1996 | Atkinson |
5513126 | April 30, 1996 | Harkins et al. |
5513323 | April 30, 1996 | Williams et al. |
5530852 | June 25, 1996 | Meske et al. |
5535276 | July 9, 1996 | Ganesan |
5541993 | July 30, 1996 | Fan et al. |
5544320 | August 6, 1996 | Konrad |
5550984 | August 27, 1996 | Gelb |
5550994 | August 27, 1996 | Tashiro et al. |
5557742 | September 17, 1996 | Smaha et al. |
5572643 | November 5, 1996 | Judson |
5577209 | November 19, 1996 | Boyle et al. |
5586254 | December 17, 1996 | Kondo et al. |
5602918 | February 11, 1997 | Chen et al. |
5606668 | February 25, 1997 | Shwed |
5608819 | March 4, 1997 | Ikeuchi |
5608874 | March 4, 1997 | Ogawa et al. |
5619648 | April 8, 1997 | Canale et al. |
5621889 | April 15, 1997 | Lermuzeaux et al. |
5632011 | May 20, 1997 | Landfield et al. |
5638487 | June 10, 1997 | Chigier |
5644404 | July 1, 1997 | Hashimoto et al. |
5657461 | August 12, 1997 | Harkins et al. |
5673322 | September 30, 1997 | Pepe et al. |
5675507 | October 7, 1997 | Bobo |
5675733 | October 7, 1997 | Williams |
5677955 | October 14, 1997 | Doggett et al. |
5694616 | December 2, 1997 | Johnson et al. |
5696822 | December 9, 1997 | Nachenberg |
5706442 | January 6, 1998 | Anderson et al. |
5708780 | January 13, 1998 | Levergood et al. |
5708826 | January 13, 1998 | Ikeda et al. |
5710883 | January 20, 1998 | Hong et al. |
5727156 | March 10, 1998 | Herr et al. |
5740231 | April 14, 1998 | Cohn et al. |
5742759 | April 21, 1998 | Nessett et al. |
5742769 | April 21, 1998 | Lee et al. |
5745574 | April 28, 1998 | Muftic |
5751956 | May 12, 1998 | Kirsch |
5758343 | May 26, 1998 | Vigil et al. |
5764906 | June 9, 1998 | Edelstein et al. |
5768528 | June 16, 1998 | Stumm |
5768552 | June 16, 1998 | Jacoby |
5771348 | June 23, 1998 | Kubatzki et al. |
5778372 | July 7, 1998 | Cordell et al. |
5781857 | July 14, 1998 | Hwang et al. |
5781901 | July 14, 1998 | Kuzma |
5790789 | August 4, 1998 | Suarez |
5790790 | August 4, 1998 | Smith et al. |
5790793 | August 4, 1998 | Higley |
5793763 | August 11, 1998 | Mayes et al. |
5793972 | August 11, 1998 | Shane |
5796942 | August 18, 1998 | Esbensen |
5796948 | August 18, 1998 | Cohen |
5801700 | September 1, 1998 | Ferguson |
5805719 | September 8, 1998 | Pare et al. |
5812398 | September 22, 1998 | Nielsen |
5812776 | September 22, 1998 | Gifford |
5822526 | October 13, 1998 | Waskiewicz |
5822527 | October 13, 1998 | Post |
5826013 | October 20, 1998 | Nachenberg |
5826014 | October 20, 1998 | Coley et al. |
5826022 | October 20, 1998 | Nielsen |
5826029 | October 20, 1998 | Gore et al. |
5835087 | November 10, 1998 | Herz et al. |
5845084 | December 1, 1998 | Cordell et al. |
5850442 | December 15, 1998 | Muftic |
5855020 | December 1998 | Kirsch |
5860068 | January 12, 1999 | Cook |
5862325 | January 19, 1999 | Reed et al. |
5864852 | January 26, 1999 | Luotonen |
5878230 | March 2, 1999 | Weber et al. |
5884033 | March 16, 1999 | Duvall et al. |
5892825 | April 6, 1999 | Mages et al. |
5893114 | April 6, 1999 | Hashimoto et al. |
5896499 | April 20, 1999 | McKelvey |
5898830 | April 27, 1999 | Wesinger et al. |
5898836 | April 27, 1999 | Freivald et al. |
5903723 | May 11, 1999 | Beck et al. |
5911776 | June 15, 1999 | Guck |
5923846 | July 13, 1999 | Gage et al. |
5930479 | July 27, 1999 | Hall |
5933478 | August 3, 1999 | Ozaki et al. |
5933498 | August 3, 1999 | Schneck et al. |
5937164 | August 10, 1999 | Mages et al. |
5940591 | August 17, 1999 | Boyle et al. |
5948062 | September 7, 1999 | Tzelnic et al. |
5958005 | September 28, 1999 | Thorne et al. |
5963915 | October 5, 1999 | Kirsch |
5978799 | November 2, 1999 | Hirsch |
5987609 | November 16, 1999 | Hasebe |
5987610 | November 16, 1999 | Franczek et al. |
5991881 | November 23, 1999 | Conklin et al. |
5999932 | December 7, 1999 | Paul |
6003027 | December 14, 1999 | Prager |
6006329 | December 21, 1999 | Chi |
6012144 | January 4, 2000 | Pickett |
6014651 | January 11, 2000 | Crawford |
6023723 | February 8, 2000 | McCormick et al. |
6029256 | February 22, 2000 | Kouznetsov |
6035423 | March 7, 2000 | Hodges et al. |
6052709 | April 18, 2000 | Paul |
6052784 | April 18, 2000 | Day |
6058381 | May 2, 2000 | Nelson |
6058482 | May 2, 2000 | Liu |
6061448 | May 9, 2000 | Smith et al. |
6061722 | May 9, 2000 | Lipa et al. |
6072942 | June 6, 2000 | Stockwell et al. |
6073142 | June 6, 2000 | Geiger et al. |
6088804 | July 11, 2000 | Hill et al. |
6092114 | July 18, 2000 | Shaffer et al. |
6092194 | July 18, 2000 | Touboul |
6094277 | July 25, 2000 | Toyoda |
6094731 | July 25, 2000 | Waldin et al. |
6104500 | August 15, 2000 | Alam et al. |
6108688 | August 22, 2000 | Nielsen |
6108691 | August 22, 2000 | Lee et al. |
6108786 | August 22, 2000 | Knowlson |
6118856 | September 12, 2000 | Paarsmarkt et al. |
6118886 | September 12, 2000 | Baumgart et al. |
6119137 | September 12, 2000 | Smith et al. |
6119142 | September 12, 2000 | Kosaka |
6119230 | September 12, 2000 | Carter |
6119236 | September 12, 2000 | Shipley |
6122661 | September 19, 2000 | Stedman et al. |
6141695 | October 31, 2000 | Sekiguchi et al. |
6141778 | October 31, 2000 | Kane et al. |
6145083 | November 7, 2000 | Shaffer et al. |
6151675 | November 21, 2000 | Smith |
6161130 | December 12, 2000 | Horvitz et al. |
6165314 | December 26, 2000 | Gardner et al. |
6185314 | February 6, 2001 | Crabtree et al. |
6185680 | February 6, 2001 | Shimbo et al. |
6185689 | February 6, 2001 | Todd et al. |
6192360 | February 20, 2001 | Dumais et al. |
6192407 | February 20, 2001 | Smith et al. |
6199102 | March 6, 2001 | Cobb |
6202157 | March 13, 2001 | Brownlie et al. |
6219714 | April 17, 2001 | Inhwan et al. |
6223213 | April 24, 2001 | Cleron et al. |
6247045 | June 12, 2001 | Shaw et al. |
6249575 | June 19, 2001 | Heilmann et al. |
6249807 | June 19, 2001 | Shaw et al. |
6260043 | July 10, 2001 | Puri et al. |
6266668 | July 24, 2001 | Vanderveldt et al. |
6269447 | July 31, 2001 | Maloney et al. |
6269456 | July 31, 2001 | Hodges et al. |
6272532 | August 7, 2001 | Feinleib |
6275942 | August 14, 2001 | Bernhard et al. |
6279113 | August 21, 2001 | Vaidya |
6279133 | August 21, 2001 | Vafai et al. |
6282565 | August 28, 2001 | Shaw et al. |
6285991 | September 4, 2001 | Powar |
6289214 | September 11, 2001 | Backstrom |
6298445 | October 2, 2001 | Shostack et al. |
6301668 | October 9, 2001 | Gleichauf et al. |
6304898 | October 16, 2001 | Shiigi |
6304973 | October 16, 2001 | Williams |
6311207 | October 30, 2001 | Mighdoll et al. |
6317829 | November 13, 2001 | Van |
6320948 | November 20, 2001 | Heilmann et al. |
6321267 | November 20, 2001 | Donaldson |
6324569 | November 27, 2001 | Ogilvie et al. |
6324647 | November 27, 2001 | Bowman |
6324656 | November 27, 2001 | Gleichauf et al. |
6330589 | December 11, 2001 | Kennedy |
6347374 | February 12, 2002 | Drake et al. |
6353886 | March 5, 2002 | Howard et al. |
6363489 | March 26, 2002 | Comay et al. |
6370648 | April 9, 2002 | Diep |
6373950 | April 16, 2002 | Rowney |
6385655 | May 7, 2002 | Smith et al. |
6393465 | May 21, 2002 | Leeds |
6393568 | May 21, 2002 | Ranger et al. |
6405318 | June 11, 2002 | Rowland |
6434624 | August 13, 2002 | Gai et al. |
6442588 | August 27, 2002 | Clark et al. |
6442686 | August 27, 2002 | McArdle et al. |
6453345 | September 17, 2002 | Trcka et al. |
6460050 | October 1, 2002 | Pace et al. |
6460141 | October 1, 2002 | Olden |
6470086 | October 22, 2002 | Smith |
6487599 | November 26, 2002 | Smith et al. |
6487666 | November 26, 2002 | Shanklin et al. |
6502191 | December 31, 2002 | Smith et al. |
6516411 | February 4, 2003 | Smith |
6519703 | February 11, 2003 | Joyce |
6539430 | March 25, 2003 | Humes |
6546416 | April 8, 2003 | Kirsch |
6546493 | April 8, 2003 | Magdych et al. |
6550012 | April 15, 2003 | Villa et al. |
6574737 | June 3, 2003 | Kingsford et al. |
6578025 | June 10, 2003 | Pollack et al. |
6609196 | August 19, 2003 | Dickinson et al. |
6636946 | October 21, 2003 | Jeddeloh |
6650890 | November 18, 2003 | Irlam et al. |
6654787 | November 25, 2003 | Aronson et al. |
6661353 | December 9, 2003 | Gopen |
6662170 | December 9, 2003 | Dom et al. |
6675153 | January 6, 2004 | Cook et al. |
6681331 | January 20, 2004 | Munson et al. |
6687687 | February 3, 2004 | Smadja |
6697950 | February 24, 2004 | Ko |
6701440 | March 2, 2004 | Kim et al. |
6704874 | March 9, 2004 | Porras et al. |
6711127 | March 23, 2004 | Gorman et al. |
6711687 | March 23, 2004 | Sekiguchi |
6725377 | April 20, 2004 | Kouznetsov |
6732101 | May 4, 2004 | Cook |
6732157 | May 4, 2004 | Gordon et al. |
6735703 | May 11, 2004 | Kilpatrick et al. |
6738462 | May 18, 2004 | Brunson |
6742116 | May 25, 2004 | Matsui et al. |
6742124 | May 25, 2004 | Kilpatrick et al. |
6742128 | May 25, 2004 | Joiner |
6754705 | June 22, 2004 | Joiner et al. |
6757830 | June 29, 2004 | Tarbotton et al. |
6760309 | July 6, 2004 | Rochberger et al. |
6768991 | July 27, 2004 | Hearnden |
6769016 | July 27, 2004 | Rothwell et al. |
6772196 | August 3, 2004 | Kirsch et al. |
6775657 | August 10, 2004 | Baker |
6792546 | September 14, 2004 | Shanklin et al. |
6880156 | April 12, 2005 | Landherr et al. |
6892178 | May 10, 2005 | Zacharia |
6892179 | May 10, 2005 | Zacharia |
6892237 | May 10, 2005 | Gai et al. |
6895385 | May 17, 2005 | Zacharia et al. |
6895438 | May 17, 2005 | Ulrich |
6907430 | June 14, 2005 | Chong et al. |
6910135 | June 21, 2005 | Grainger |
6928556 | August 9, 2005 | Black et al. |
6941348 | September 6, 2005 | Petry et al. |
6941467 | September 6, 2005 | Judge et al. |
6968461 | November 22, 2005 | Lucas et al. |
6981143 | December 27, 2005 | Mullen et al. |
7051077 | May 23, 2006 | Lin |
7076527 | July 11, 2006 | Bellegarda et al. |
7089428 | August 8, 2006 | Farley et al. |
7089590 | August 8, 2006 | Judge et al. |
7092992 | August 15, 2006 | Yu |
7093129 | August 15, 2006 | Gavagni et al. |
7096498 | August 22, 2006 | Judge |
7117358 | October 3, 2006 | Bandini et al. |
7124372 | October 17, 2006 | Brin |
7124438 | October 17, 2006 | Judge et al. |
7131003 | October 31, 2006 | Lord et al. |
7143213 | November 28, 2006 | Need et al. |
7152105 | December 19, 2006 | McClure et al. |
7155243 | December 26, 2006 | Baldwin et al. |
7164678 | January 16, 2007 | Connor |
7206814 | April 17, 2007 | Kirsch |
7209954 | April 24, 2007 | Rothwell et al. |
7213260 | May 1, 2007 | Judge |
7219131 | May 15, 2007 | Banister et al. |
7225466 | May 29, 2007 | Judge |
7254608 | August 7, 2007 | Yeager et al. |
7254712 | August 7, 2007 | Godfrey et al. |
7260840 | August 21, 2007 | Swander et al. |
7272149 | September 18, 2007 | Bly et al. |
7272853 | September 18, 2007 | Goodman et al. |
7278159 | October 2, 2007 | Kaashoek et al. |
7349332 | March 25, 2008 | Srinivasan et al. |
7376731 | May 20, 2008 | Khan et al. |
7379900 | May 27, 2008 | Wren |
7385924 | June 10, 2008 | Riddle |
7458098 | November 25, 2008 | Judge et al. |
7460476 | December 2, 2008 | Morris et al. |
7461339 | December 2, 2008 | Liao et al. |
7496634 | February 24, 2009 | Cooley |
7502829 | March 10, 2009 | Radatti et al. |
7506155 | March 17, 2009 | Stewart et al. |
7519563 | April 14, 2009 | Urmanov et al. |
7519994 | April 14, 2009 | Judge et al. |
7522516 | April 21, 2009 | Parker |
7523092 | April 21, 2009 | Andreev et al. |
7543053 | June 2, 2009 | Goodman et al. |
7543056 | June 2, 2009 | McClure et al. |
7545748 | June 9, 2009 | Riddle |
7610344 | October 27, 2009 | Mehr et al. |
7617160 | November 10, 2009 | Grove et al. |
7620986 | November 17, 2009 | Jagannathan et al. |
7624448 | November 24, 2009 | Coffman |
7644127 | January 5, 2010 | Yu |
7647411 | January 12, 2010 | Schiavone et al. |
7668951 | February 23, 2010 | Lund et al. |
7693947 | April 6, 2010 | Judge et al. |
7694128 | April 6, 2010 | Judge et al. |
7711684 | May 4, 2010 | Sundaresan et al. |
7716310 | May 11, 2010 | Foti |
7730316 | June 1, 2010 | Baccash |
7739253 | June 15, 2010 | Yanovsky et al. |
7748038 | June 29, 2010 | Olivier et al. |
7779156 | August 17, 2010 | Alperovitch et al. |
7779466 | August 17, 2010 | Judge et al. |
7870203 | January 11, 2011 | Judge et al. |
7899866 | March 1, 2011 | Buckingham et al. |
7903549 | March 8, 2011 | Judge et al. |
7917627 | March 29, 2011 | Andriantsiferana et al. |
7937480 | May 3, 2011 | Alperovitch et al. |
7941523 | May 10, 2011 | Andreev et al. |
7949716 | May 24, 2011 | Alperovitch et al. |
7949992 | May 24, 2011 | Andreev et al. |
7966335 | June 21, 2011 | Sundaresan et al. |
8042149 | October 18, 2011 | Judge |
8042181 | October 18, 2011 | Judge |
8045458 | October 25, 2011 | Alperovitch et al. |
8051134 | November 1, 2011 | Begeja et al. |
8069481 | November 29, 2011 | Judge |
8079087 | December 13, 2011 | Spies et al. |
8095876 | January 10, 2012 | Verstak et al. |
8132250 | March 6, 2012 | Judge et al. |
8160975 | April 17, 2012 | Tang et al. |
8179798 | May 15, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
8185930 | May 22, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
8214497 | July 3, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
20010037311 | November 1, 2001 | McCoy et al. |
20010049793 | December 6, 2001 | Sugimoto |
20020004902 | January 10, 2002 | Toh et al. |
20020009079 | January 24, 2002 | Jugck et al. |
20020013692 | January 31, 2002 | Chandhok et al. |
20020016824 | February 7, 2002 | Leeds |
20020016910 | February 7, 2002 | Wright et al. |
20020023089 | February 21, 2002 | Woo |
20020023140 | February 21, 2002 | Hile et al. |
20020026591 | February 28, 2002 | Hartley et al. |
20020032871 | March 14, 2002 | Malan et al. |
20020035683 | March 21, 2002 | Kaashoek et al. |
20020042876 | April 11, 2002 | Smith |
20020046041 | April 18, 2002 | Lang |
20020049853 | April 25, 2002 | Chu et al. |
20020051575 | May 2, 2002 | Myers et al. |
20020059454 | May 16, 2002 | Barrett et al. |
20020062368 | May 23, 2002 | Holtzman et al. |
20020078382 | June 20, 2002 | Sheikh et al. |
20020087882 | July 4, 2002 | Schneier et al. |
20020095492 | July 18, 2002 | Kaashoek et al. |
20020112013 | August 15, 2002 | Walsh |
20020112185 | August 15, 2002 | Hodges |
20020116627 | August 22, 2002 | Tarbotton et al. |
20020120853 | August 29, 2002 | Tyree |
20020133365 | September 19, 2002 | Grey et al. |
20020138416 | September 26, 2002 | Lovejoy et al. |
20020138755 | September 26, 2002 | Ko |
20020138759 | September 26, 2002 | Dutta |
20020138762 | September 26, 2002 | Horne |
20020143963 | October 3, 2002 | Converse et al. |
20020147734 | October 10, 2002 | Shoup et al. |
20020152399 | October 17, 2002 | Smith |
20020165971 | November 7, 2002 | Baron |
20020169954 | November 14, 2002 | Bandini et al. |
20020172367 | November 21, 2002 | Mulder et al. |
20020178227 | November 28, 2002 | Matsa et al. |
20020178383 | November 28, 2002 | Hrabik et al. |
20020178410 | November 28, 2002 | Haitsma et al. |
20020188732 | December 12, 2002 | Buckman et al. |
20020188864 | December 12, 2002 | Jackson |
20020194469 | December 19, 2002 | Dominique et al. |
20020199095 | December 26, 2002 | Bandini et al. |
20030005326 | January 2, 2003 | Flemming |
20030005331 | January 2, 2003 | Williams |
20030009554 | January 9, 2003 | Burch et al. |
20030009693 | January 9, 2003 | Brock et al. |
20030009696 | January 9, 2003 | Bunker et al. |
20030009699 | January 9, 2003 | Gupta et al. |
20030014664 | January 16, 2003 | Hentunen |
20030023692 | January 30, 2003 | Moroo |
20030023695 | January 30, 2003 | Kobata et al. |
20030023736 | January 30, 2003 | Abkemeier |
20030023873 | January 30, 2003 | Ben |
20030023874 | January 30, 2003 | Prokupets et al. |
20030023875 | January 30, 2003 | Hursey et al. |
20030028803 | February 6, 2003 | Bunker et al. |
20030033516 | February 13, 2003 | Howard et al. |
20030033542 | February 13, 2003 | Goseva et al. |
20030041264 | February 27, 2003 | Black et al. |
20030046253 | March 6, 2003 | Shetty et al. |
20030051026 | March 13, 2003 | Carter et al. |
20030051163 | March 13, 2003 | Bidaud |
20030051168 | March 13, 2003 | King et al. |
20030055931 | March 20, 2003 | Cravo et al. |
20030061506 | March 27, 2003 | Cooper et al. |
20030065943 | April 3, 2003 | Geis et al. |
20030084280 | May 1, 2003 | Bryan et al. |
20030084320 | May 1, 2003 | Tarquini et al. |
20030084323 | May 1, 2003 | Gales |
20030084347 | May 1, 2003 | Luzzatto |
20030088792 | May 8, 2003 | Card et al. |
20030093518 | May 15, 2003 | Hiraga |
20030093667 | May 15, 2003 | Dutta et al. |
20030093695 | May 15, 2003 | Dutta |
20030093696 | May 15, 2003 | Sugimoto |
20030095555 | May 22, 2003 | McNamara et al. |
20030097439 | May 22, 2003 | Strayer et al. |
20030097564 | May 22, 2003 | Tewari et al. |
20030105976 | June 5, 2003 | Copeland |
20030110392 | June 12, 2003 | Aucsmith et al. |
20030110396 | June 12, 2003 | Lewis et al. |
20030115485 | June 19, 2003 | Milliken |
20030115486 | June 19, 2003 | Choi et al. |
20030123665 | July 3, 2003 | Dunstan et al. |
20030126464 | July 3, 2003 | McDaniel et al. |
20030126472 | July 3, 2003 | Banzhof |
20030135749 | July 17, 2003 | Gales et al. |
20030140137 | July 24, 2003 | Joiner et al. |
20030140250 | July 24, 2003 | Taninaka et al. |
20030145212 | July 31, 2003 | Crumly |
20030145225 | July 31, 2003 | Bruton et al. |
20030145226 | July 31, 2003 | Bruton et al. |
20030149887 | August 7, 2003 | Yadav |
20030149888 | August 7, 2003 | Yadav |
20030152076 | August 14, 2003 | Lee et al. |
20030152096 | August 14, 2003 | Chapman |
20030154393 | August 14, 2003 | Young |
20030154399 | August 14, 2003 | Zuk et al. |
20030154402 | August 14, 2003 | Pandit et al. |
20030158905 | August 21, 2003 | Petry et al. |
20030159069 | August 21, 2003 | Choi et al. |
20030159070 | August 21, 2003 | Mayer et al. |
20030167308 | September 4, 2003 | Schran |
20030167402 | September 4, 2003 | Stolfo et al. |
20030172166 | September 11, 2003 | Judge et al. |
20030172167 | September 11, 2003 | Judge et al. |
20030172289 | September 11, 2003 | Soppera |
20030172291 | September 11, 2003 | Judge et al. |
20030172292 | September 11, 2003 | Judge |
20030172294 | September 11, 2003 | Judge |
20030172301 | September 11, 2003 | Judge et al. |
20030172302 | September 11, 2003 | Judge et al. |
20030182421 | September 25, 2003 | Faybishenko et al. |
20030187936 | October 2, 2003 | Bodin et al. |
20030187996 | October 2, 2003 | Cardina et al. |
20030204596 | October 30, 2003 | Yadav |
20030204719 | October 30, 2003 | Ben |
20030204741 | October 30, 2003 | Schoen et al. |
20030212791 | November 13, 2003 | Pickup |
20030233328 | December 18, 2003 | Scott et al. |
20040015554 | January 22, 2004 | Wilson |
20040025044 | February 5, 2004 | Day |
20040034794 | February 19, 2004 | Mayer et al. |
20040054886 | March 18, 2004 | Dickinson et al. |
20040058673 | March 25, 2004 | Irlam et al. |
20040059811 | March 25, 2004 | Sugauchi et al. |
20040088570 | May 6, 2004 | Roberts et al. |
20040098464 | May 20, 2004 | Koch et al. |
20040111519 | June 10, 2004 | Fu et al. |
20040111531 | June 10, 2004 | Staniford et al. |
20040122926 | June 24, 2004 | Moore et al. |
20040122967 | June 24, 2004 | Bressler et al. |
20040123157 | June 24, 2004 | Alagna et al. |
20040128355 | July 1, 2004 | Chao et al. |
20040139160 | July 15, 2004 | Wallace et al. |
20040139334 | July 15, 2004 | Wiseman |
20040165727 | August 26, 2004 | Moreh et al. |
20040167968 | August 26, 2004 | Wilson et al. |
20040177120 | September 9, 2004 | Kirsch |
20040203589 | October 14, 2004 | Wang et al. |
20040205135 | October 14, 2004 | Hallam |
20040221062 | November 4, 2004 | Starbuck et al. |
20040236884 | November 25, 2004 | Beetz |
20040249895 | December 9, 2004 | Way |
20040255122 | December 16, 2004 | Ingerman et al. |
20040267893 | December 30, 2004 | Lin |
20050021738 | January 27, 2005 | Goeller et al. |
20050021997 | January 27, 2005 | Beynon et al. |
20050033742 | February 10, 2005 | Kamvar et al. |
20050052998 | March 10, 2005 | Oliver et al. |
20050060295 | March 17, 2005 | Gould et al. |
20050060643 | March 17, 2005 | Glass et al. |
20050065810 | March 24, 2005 | Bouron |
20050086300 | April 21, 2005 | Yeager et al. |
20050091319 | April 28, 2005 | Kirsch |
20050091320 | April 28, 2005 | Kirsch et al. |
20050102366 | May 12, 2005 | Kirsch |
20050120019 | June 2, 2005 | Rigoutsos et al. |
20050141427 | June 30, 2005 | Bartky |
20050149383 | July 7, 2005 | Zacharia et al. |
20050159998 | July 21, 2005 | Buyukkokten et al. |
20050160148 | July 21, 2005 | Yu |
20050192958 | September 1, 2005 | Widjojo et al. |
20050193076 | September 1, 2005 | Flury et al. |
20050198159 | September 8, 2005 | Kirsch |
20050204001 | September 15, 2005 | Stein et al. |
20050216564 | September 29, 2005 | Myers et al. |
20050256866 | November 17, 2005 | Lu et al. |
20050262209 | November 24, 2005 | Yu |
20050262210 | November 24, 2005 | Yu |
20050262556 | November 24, 2005 | Waisman et al. |
20060007936 | January 12, 2006 | Shrum et al. |
20060009994 | January 12, 2006 | Hogg et al. |
20060015563 | January 19, 2006 | Judge et al. |
20060015942 | January 19, 2006 | Judge et al. |
20060021055 | January 26, 2006 | Judge et al. |
20060023940 | February 2, 2006 | Katsuyama |
20060031314 | February 9, 2006 | Brahms et al. |
20060031483 | February 9, 2006 | Lund et al. |
20060036693 | February 16, 2006 | Hulten et al. |
20060036727 | February 16, 2006 | Kurapati et al. |
20060041508 | February 23, 2006 | Pham et al. |
20060042483 | March 2, 2006 | Work et al. |
20060047794 | March 2, 2006 | Jezierski |
20060059238 | March 16, 2006 | Slater et al. |
20060095404 | May 4, 2006 | Adelman et al. |
20060095586 | May 4, 2006 | Adelman et al. |
20060112026 | May 25, 2006 | Graf et al. |
20060123083 | June 8, 2006 | Goutte et al. |
20060129810 | June 15, 2006 | Jeong et al. |
20060149821 | July 6, 2006 | Rajan et al. |
20060155553 | July 13, 2006 | Brohman et al. |
20060168024 | July 27, 2006 | Mehr et al. |
20060174337 | August 3, 2006 | Bernoth |
20060174341 | August 3, 2006 | Judge |
20060179113 | August 10, 2006 | Buckingham et al. |
20060184632 | August 17, 2006 | Marino et al. |
20060191002 | August 24, 2006 | Lee et al. |
20060212925 | September 21, 2006 | Shull et al. |
20060212930 | September 21, 2006 | Shull et al. |
20060212931 | September 21, 2006 | Shull et al. |
20060225136 | October 5, 2006 | Rounthwaite et al. |
20060230039 | October 12, 2006 | Shull et al. |
20060230134 | October 12, 2006 | Qian et al. |
20060248156 | November 2, 2006 | Judge et al. |
20060251068 | November 9, 2006 | Judge et al. |
20060253447 | November 9, 2006 | Judge |
20060253458 | November 9, 2006 | Dixon et al. |
20060253578 | November 9, 2006 | Dixon et al. |
20060253579 | November 9, 2006 | Dixon et al. |
20060253582 | November 9, 2006 | Dixon et al. |
20060253584 | November 9, 2006 | Dixon et al. |
20060265747 | November 23, 2006 | Judge |
20060267802 | November 30, 2006 | Judge et al. |
20060277259 | December 7, 2006 | Murphy et al. |
20070002831 | January 4, 2007 | Allen et al. |
20070019235 | January 25, 2007 | Lee |
20070025304 | February 1, 2007 | Leelahakriengkrai et al. |
20070027992 | February 1, 2007 | Judge et al. |
20070028301 | February 1, 2007 | Shull et al. |
20070043738 | February 22, 2007 | Morris et al. |
20070078675 | April 5, 2007 | Kaplan |
20070124803 | May 31, 2007 | Taraz |
20070130350 | June 7, 2007 | Alperovitch et al. |
20070130351 | June 7, 2007 | Alperovitch et al. |
20070168394 | July 19, 2007 | Vivekanand |
20070195753 | August 23, 2007 | Judge et al. |
20070195779 | August 23, 2007 | Judge et al. |
20070199070 | August 23, 2007 | Hughes |
20070203997 | August 30, 2007 | Ingerman et al. |
20070208817 | September 6, 2007 | Lund et al. |
20070214151 | September 13, 2007 | Thomas et al. |
20070233787 | October 4, 2007 | Pagan |
20070239642 | October 11, 2007 | Sindhwani et al. |
20070253412 | November 1, 2007 | Batteram et al. |
20080005223 | January 3, 2008 | Flake et al. |
20080022384 | January 24, 2008 | Yee et al. |
20080047009 | February 21, 2008 | Overcash et al. |
20080077517 | March 27, 2008 | Sappington |
20080082662 | April 3, 2008 | Dandliker et al. |
20080091765 | April 17, 2008 | Gammage et al. |
20080103843 | May 1, 2008 | Goeppert et al. |
20080104180 | May 1, 2008 | Gabe |
20080123823 | May 29, 2008 | Pirzada et al. |
20080159632 | July 3, 2008 | Oliver et al. |
20080175226 | July 24, 2008 | Alperovitch et al. |
20080175266 | July 24, 2008 | Alperovitch et al. |
20080177684 | July 24, 2008 | Laxman et al. |
20080177691 | July 24, 2008 | Alperovitch et al. |
20080178259 | July 24, 2008 | Alperovitch et al. |
20080178288 | July 24, 2008 | Alperovitch et al. |
20080184366 | July 31, 2008 | Alperovitch et al. |
20080301755 | December 4, 2008 | Sinha et al. |
20080303689 | December 11, 2008 | Iverson |
20090003204 | January 1, 2009 | Okholm et al. |
20090089279 | April 2, 2009 | Jeong et al. |
20090103524 | April 23, 2009 | Mantripragada et al. |
20090113016 | April 30, 2009 | Sen et al. |
20090119740 | May 7, 2009 | Alperovitch et al. |
20090122699 | May 14, 2009 | Alperovitch et al. |
20090125980 | May 14, 2009 | Alperovitch et al. |
20090164582 | June 25, 2009 | Dasgupta et al. |
20090192955 | July 30, 2009 | Tang et al. |
20090254499 | October 8, 2009 | Deyo |
20090254572 | October 8, 2009 | Redlich et al. |
20090254663 | October 8, 2009 | Alperovitch et al. |
20090282476 | November 12, 2009 | Nachenberg et al. |
20100115040 | May 6, 2010 | Sargent et al. |
20100306846 | December 2, 2010 | Alperovitch et al. |
20110280160 | November 17, 2011 | Yang |
20110296519 | December 1, 2011 | Ide et al. |
20120011252 | January 12, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
20120084441 | April 5, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
20120110672 | May 3, 2012 | Judge et al. |
20120174219 | July 5, 2012 | Hernandez et al. |
20120204265 | August 9, 2012 | Judge |
20120216248 | August 23, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
20120239751 | September 20, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
20120240228 | September 20, 2012 | Alperovitch et al. |
2003230606 | October 2003 | AU |
2005304883 | May 2006 | AU |
2006315184 | May 2007 | AU |
2008207924 | July 2008 | AU |
2008207926 | July 2008 | AU |
2008207930 | July 2008 | AU |
2008323779 | May 2009 | AU |
2008323784 | May 2009 | AU |
2009203095 | August 2009 | AU |
2478299 | September 2003 | CA |
2564533 | December 2005 | CA |
2586709 | May 2006 | CA |
2628189 | May 2007 | CA |
2654796 | December 2007 | CA |
10140166 | April 2009 | CN |
101443736 | May 2009 | CN |
101730892 | June 2010 | CN |
101730904 | June 2010 | CN |
101730903 | November 2012 | CN |
103095672 | May 2013 | CN |
375138 | June 1990 | EP |
413537 | February 1991 | EP |
420779 | April 1991 | EP |
720333 | July 1996 | EP |
838774 | April 1998 | EP |
869652 | October 1998 | EP |
907120 | April 1999 | EP |
1326376 | July 2003 | EP |
1488316 | December 2004 | EP |
1271846 | July 2005 | EP |
1672558 | June 2006 | EP |
1819108 | August 2007 | EP |
1820101 | August 2007 | EP |
1982540 | October 2008 | EP |
2036246 | March 2009 | EP |
2115642 | November 2009 | EP |
2115689 | November 2009 | EP |
2213056 | August 2010 | EP |
2223258 | September 2010 | EP |
2562975 | February 2013 | EP |
2562976 | February 2013 | EP |
2562986 | February 2013 | EP |
2562987 | February 2013 | EP |
2271002 | December 1995 | GB |
2357932 | July 2001 | GB |
3279-DELNP-2007 | August 2007 | IN |
4233-DELNP-2007 | August 2008 | IN |
4842/CHENP/2009 | January 2010 | IN |
4763/CHENP/2009 | July 2010 | IN |
2000148276 | May 2000 | JP |
2000215046 | August 2000 | JP |
2001028006 | January 2001 | JP |
2003-150482 | May 2003 | JP |
2004-533677 | November 2004 | JP |
2004537075 | December 2004 | JP |
2005-520230 | July 2005 | JP |
2006268544 | October 2006 | JP |
18350870 | December 2006 | JP |
2007-540073 | June 2008 | JP |
2008519532 | June 2008 | JP |
2009-516269 | April 2009 | JP |
10-0447082 | September 2004 | KR |
2006-0012137 | February 2006 | KR |
2006012137 | February 2006 | KR |
2006-0028200 | March 2006 | KR |
2006028200 | March 2006 | KR |
2006041934 | May 2006 | KR |
10-0699531 | March 2007 | KR |
699531 | March 2007 | KR |
10-0737523 | July 2007 | KR |
737523 | July 2007 | KR |
10-0750377 | August 2007 | KR |
750377 | August 2007 | KR |
447082 | December 2009 | KR |
106744 | November 2004 | SG |
142513 | June 2008 | SG |
WO9635994 | November 1996 | WO |
WO9905814 | April 1999 | WO |
WO9937066 | July 1999 | WO |
WO9933188 | August 1999 | WO |
WO0007312 | February 2000 | WO |
WO0008543 | February 2000 | WO |
WO0042748 | July 2000 | WO |
WO 00/59167 | October 2000 | WO |
WO 01/22686 | March 2001 | WO |
WO0180480 | October 2001 | WO |
WO0117165 | November 2001 | WO |
WO0150691 | December 2001 | WO |
WO 02/15521 | February 2002 | WO |
WO0176181 | March 2002 | WO |
WO0188834 | May 2002 | WO |
WO02013469 | September 2002 | WO |
WO02075547 | September 2002 | WO |
WO02082293 | October 2002 | WO |
WO02091706 | November 2002 | WO |
WO02013489 | January 2003 | WO |
WO 03/077071 | September 2003 | WO |
WO2004061698 | July 2004 | WO |
WO2004061703 | July 2004 | WO |
WO2004081734 | September 2004 | WO |
WO2004088455 | October 2004 | WO |
WO 2005/006139 | January 2005 | WO |
WO2005086437 | September 2005 | WO |
WO 2005/119485 | December 2005 | WO |
WO 2005/119488 | December 2005 | WO |
WO 2006/029399 | March 2006 | WO |
WO 2006/119509 | March 2006 | WO |
WO 2006/052736 | May 2006 | WO |
WO2007030951 | March 2007 | WO |
WO2005116851 | April 2007 | WO |
WO 2007/059428 | May 2007 | WO |
WO 2007/144696 | December 2007 | WO |
WO 2007/146690 | December 2007 | WO |
WO 2007/146696 | December 2007 | WO |
WO 2007/146701 | December 2007 | WO |
WO 2008/008543 | January 2008 | WO |
WO 2008/091980 | July 2008 | WO |
WO 2008/091982 | July 2008 | WO |
WO 2008/091986 | July 2008 | WO |
WO 2009/146118 | February 2009 | WO |
WO 2009/062018 | May 2009 | WO |
WO 2009/062023 | May 2009 | WO |
- Extended European Search Report, PCT Application No. PCT/US2006/060771, dated Mar. 12, 2010, 7 pages.
- Japanese Office Action for JP Application No. 2008-540356, dated Sep. 21, 2011, 2 pages.
- Notification Concerning Availability of the Publication of the International Application, PCT/US2006/060771, dated Apr. 17, 2008, 4 pages.
- Natsev, Apostol et al. “WALRUS: A Similarity Retrieval Algorithm for Image Databases,” Mar. 2004.
- Schleimer, Saul eta I. “Winnowing: Local Algorithms for Document Fingerprinting,” Jun. 2003.
- PCT Notification of International Search Report & Written Opinion, PCT/US2005/039978, mailed Jul. 8, 2008, 14 pages.
- PCT Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2005/039978, mailed May 14, 2009, 10 pages.
- Abika.com, “Trace IP address, email or IM to owner or use,” http://www.abika.com/help/IPaddressmap.htm, 3pp. (Jan. 25, 2006).
- Abika.com, “Request a Persons Report,” http:www.abika.com/forms/Verifyemailaddress.asp, 1 page, (Jan. 26, 2006).
- Aikawa,Narichika, Q&A Collection: Personal computers have been introduced to junior high schools and accessing to the Internet has been started; however, we want to avoid the students from accessing harmful information. What can we do?, DOS/V POWER REPORT, vol. 8, No. 5, Japan, Impress Co., Ltd., 1998, May 1, pp. 358-361.
- Ando, Ruo, Real-time neural detection with network capturing, Study report from Information Processing Society of Japan, vol. 2002, No. 12, IPSJ SIG Notes, Information Processing Society of Japan, Feb. 15, 2002, pp. 145-150.
- Article entitled “A Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Text Categorization” by Yang et. al., Machine Learning—International Workshop Then Conference, pp. 412-420, Jul. 1997.
- Article entitled “A Comparison of Classifiers and Document Representations for the Routing Problem” by Schutze, 1995, pp. 229-237.
- Article entitled “A Comparison of Two Learning Algorithms for Text Categorization” by Lewis et al., in Third Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, Apr. 11-13, 1994, pp. 81-92.
- Article entitled “A DNS Filter and Switch for Packet-filtering Gateways” by Cheswick et al., in Proc. of the Sixth Annual USENIX Security Symposium: Focusing on Applications of Cryptography, Jul. 22-25, 1996, pp. 15-19.
- Article entitled “A Secure Email Gateway (Building an RCAS External Interface)” by Smith, in Tenth Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Dec. 5-9, 1994, pp. 202-211.
- Article entitled “A Short Tutorial on Wireless LANs and IEEE 802.11” by Lough et al., printed May 27, 2002, in the IEEE Computer Society's Student Newsletter, Summer 1997, vol. 5, No. 2, 6 pages.
- Article entitled “A Toolkit and Methods for Internet Firewalls” by Ranum et. al., in Proc. of USENIX Summer 1994 Technical Conference, Jun. 6-10, 1994, pp. 37-44.
- Article entitled “An Evaluation of Phrasal and Clustered Representations on a Text Categorization Task” by Lewis, in 15th Ann Int'l SIGIR, Jun. 1992, pp. 37-50.
- Article entitled “An Example-Based Mapping Method for Text Categorization and Retrieval” by Yang et. al., in ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Jul. 1994, vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 252-277.
- Article entitled “Automating the OSI to Internet Management Conversion Through the Use of an Object-Oriented Platform” by Pavlou et al., in Proc. of the IFIP TC6/WG6.4 International Conference on Advanced Information Processing Techniques for LAN and MAN Management, Apr. 7-9, 1993, pp. 245-260.
- Article entitled “CAFE: A Conceptual Model for Managing Information in Electronic Mail” by Takkinen et al. in Proc. 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1998, pp. 44-53.
- Article entitled “Classification of Text Documents” by Li et. al., in The Computer Journal, vol. 41, No. 8, 1998, pp. 537-546.
- Article entitled “Design of the TTI Prototype Trusted Mail Agent” by Rose et. al., in Computer Message Systems-85: Proc. of the IFIP TC 6 International Symposium on Computer Message Systems, Sep. 5-7, 1985, pp. 377-399.
- Article entitled “Designing an Academic Firewall: Policy, Practice, and Experience with SURF” by Greenwald et. al., in Proc. of the 1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems Security, 1996, pp. 1-14.
- Article entitled “Firewall Systems: The Next Generation” by McGhie, in Integration Issues in Large Commercial Media Delivery Systems: Proc. of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, Oct. 23-24, 1995, pp. 270-281.
- Article entitled “Firewalls for Sale” by Bryan, in BYTE, Apr. 1995, pp. 99-104.
- Article entitled “Hierarchical Bayesian Clustering for Automatic Text Classification” by Iwayama et al. in Natural Language, 1995, pp. 1322-1327.
- Article entitled “Hierarchically classifying documents using very few words” by Koller et. al., in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 1997, 9 pages.
- Article entitled “Implementing a Generalized Tool for Network Monitoring” by Ranum et. al. in LISA XI, Oct. 26-31, 1997, pp. 1-8.
- Article entitled “Integralis' Minesweeper defuses E-mail bombs” by Kramer et. al., in PC Week, Mar. 18, 1996, pp. N17-N23.
- Article entitled “Issues when designing filters in messaging systems” by Palme et. al., in 19 Computer Communications, 1996, pp. 95-101.
- Article entitled “Learning Limited Dependence Bayesian Classifiers” by Sahami, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1996, pp. 335-338.
- Article entitled “Learning Rules that Classify E-mail” by Cohen, 1996, pp. 1-8.
- Article entitled “Method for Automatic Contextual Transposition Upon Receipt of Item of Specified Criteria” printed Feb. 1994 in IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 37, No. 2B, p. 333.
- Article entitled “MIMEsweeper defuses virus network, 'net mail bombs” by Avery, in Info World, May 20, 1996, vol. 12, No. 21, p. N1.
- Article entitled “Safe Use of X Window System Protocol Across a Firewall” by Kahn, in Proc. of the Fifth USENIX UNIX Security Symposium, Jun. 5-7, 1995, pp. 105-116.
- Article entitled “Secure External References in Multimedia Email Messages” by Wiegel, in 3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Mar. 14-16, 1996, pp. 11-18.
- Article entitled “Securing Electronic Mail Systems” by Serenelli et al., in Communications-Fusing Command Control and Intelligence: MILCOM '92, 1992, pp. 677-680.
- Article entitled “Securing the Web: fire walls, proxy servers, and data driven attacks” by Farrow in InfoWorld, Jun. 19, 1995, vol. 17, No. 25, p. 103.
- Article entitled “Sendmail and Spam” by LeFebvre in Performance Computing, Aug. 1998, pp. 55-58.
- Article entitled “Smokey: Automatic Recognition of Hostile Messages” by Spertus in Innovative Applications 1997, pp. 1058-1065.
- Article entitled “Spam!” by Cranor et. al. in Communications of the ACM, vol. 41, No. 8, Aug. 1998, pp. 74-83.
- Article entitled “Stomping out mail viruses” by Wilkerson, in PC Week, Jul. 15, 1996, p. N8.
- Article entitled “Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features” by Joachins in Machine Learning: ECML-98, Apr. 1998, pp. 1-14.
- Article entitled “Toward Optimal Feature Selection” by Koller et al., in Machine Learning: Proc. of the Thirteenth International Conference, 1996, 9 pages.
- Article entitled “X Through the Firewall, and Other Application Relays” by Treese et. al. in Proc. of the USENIX Summer 1993 Technical Conference, Jun. 21-25, 1993, pp. 87-99.
- Book entitled Machine Learning by Mitchell, 1997, pp. 180-184.
- Examiner's Report for Australian Patent Application No. 2006315184, dated Mar. 31, 2010, 8 pages.
- European Supplementary Search Report for EP Application No. 03723691.6 dated Jun. 29, 2010, 6 pages.
- China Patent Agent (H.K.) Ltd., First Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 200680050707.7, dated Mar. 9, 2010, 31 pages.
- Memo entitled “SOCKS Protocol Version 5” by Leech et. al., in Standards Track, Mar. 1996, 10 pages.
- First/Consequent Examination Report for IN Application No. 2639/DELNP/2004, Apr. 8, 2011, 3 pages.
- Official Action (with uncertified Translation), Japanese Patent Application No. 2003-575222, Sep. 25, 2009, 13 pages.
- Office Action for JP Application No. 2007-540073, dated Dec. 14, 2010 (with translation), 9 pages.
- Kane, Paul J. et al. “Quantification of Banding, Streaking and Grain in Flat Field Images,” 2000, 5 pages.
- Kim, JiSoo et al. “Text Locating from Natural Scene Images Using Image Intensities,” 2005 IEEE, 5 pages.
- Lane, Terran et al., “Sequence Matching and Learning in Anomaly Detection for Computer Security,” AAAI Technical Report WS-97-07, 1997, pp. 43-49.
- Shishibori, Masami et al., “A Filtering Method for Mail Documents Using Personal Profiles,” IEICE Technical Report, The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, vol. 98, No. 486, Dec. 17, 1998, pp. 9-16.
- Sobottka, K. et al. “Text extraction from colored book and journal covers,” 2000, pp. 163-176.
- Thomas, R. et al. “The Game Goes On: An Analysis of Modern SPAM Techniques,” 2006.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/423,329, mailed Jan. 14, 2010, 21 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/423,329, mailed Jun. 29, 2009, 43 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,470, mailed Jan. 19, 2010, 45 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,470, mailed Sep. 21, 2010, 36 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,470, mailed Oct. 18, 2011, 57 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,943, mailed Jun. 26, 2008, 59 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,943, mailed Apr. 29, 2009, 18 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,943, mailed Dec. 31, 2009, 15 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,943, mailed Jan. 13, 2009, 7 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/142,943, mailed Sep. 16, 2010, 7 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/937,274, mailed Aug. 26, 2010, 29 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/937,274, mailed Dec. 9, 2009, 53 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/937,274, mailed Jun. 29, 2009, 46 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,603, mailed Dec. 2, 2009, 47 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,603, mailed Mar. 28, 2011, 35 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Non-Final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,603, mailed Jul. 13, 2010, 27 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,603, mailed Aug. 11, 2009, 7 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office Nonfinal Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,479, mailed Mar. 17, 2010, 65 pages.
- Website: Atabok VCN Auto-Exchange™—Atabok Related Produces, www.atabok.com, Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- Website: Atabok VCNMAIL ™ Secure Email Solution—Atabok Related Produces, www.atabok.com, Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-2.
- Website: Baltimore Focus on e-Security—Baltimore Technologies, www.baltimore.com, Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-2.
- Website: Control Your Confidential Communications with Atabok—Atabok Related Produces, www.atabok.com , Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- Website: Controlling Digital Assets Is a Paramount Need for All Business—Atabok Related Produces, www.atabok.com, Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- Website: Create Secure Internet Communication Channels—Atabok Homepage, www.atabok.com, Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-3.
- Website: E-mail Plug-in—Features and Benefits—Entrust Entelligence, www.entrust.com, Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-2.
- Website: E-mail Plug-in—Get Technical/Interoperability—Entrust Entelligence, www.entrust.com, Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- Website: E-mail Plug-in—Get Technical/System Requirements—Entrust Entelligence, www.entrust.com, Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- Website: Entrust Entelligence—Entrust Homepage. www.entrust.com, Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- Website: ESKE—Email with Secure Key Exchange—ESKE. www.danu.ie, Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- Website: Go Secure! for Microsoft Exchange—Products/Services—Verisign, Inc, www.verisign.com, retrieved prior to Jul. 13, 2006, 2 pages.
- Website: Internet Filtering Software—Internet Manager Homepage. www.elronsw.com, Feb. 19, 2002.
- Website: Technical Focus—Products—Entegrity AssureAccess, www2.entegrity.com, Feb. 19, 2002, pp. 1-4.
- Website: Terminet—ESKE, www.danu.ie, Feb. 19, 2002, 1 page.
- PCT Notification of Search Report & Written Opinion, PCT/US2008/082781, Nov. 7, 2008, 12 pages.
- PCT Notification of International Search Report & Written Opinion, PCT/US2009/039401, mailed Nov. 16, 2009, 14 pages.
- PCT Notification of International Search Report & Written Opinion, PCT/US2009/039401, mailed Oct. 14, 2010, 9 pages.
- Official Action (with uncertified Translation), Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-540073, Jul. 7, 2011, 4 pages.
- PCT Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2008/051865, mailed Aug. 6, 2009, 16 pages.
- PCT Notification of International Search Report & Written Opinion, PCT/US2008/051869, mailed Jun. 5, 2008, 11 pages.
- PCT Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2008/051PCT/US2008/051876, mailed Aug. 6, 2009, 8 pages.
- PCT Notification Concerning Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2008/082771, mailed May 20, 2010, 10 pages.
- PCT Notification of International Search Report & Written Opinion, PCT/US2008/082771, mailed Apr. 24, 2009, 14 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,568, mailed Aug. 24, 2011, 17 pages.
- US Patent and Trademark Office non-final Office Action Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/626,568, mailed Dec. 15, 2010, 16 pages.
- Supplementary European Search Report, PCT Application No. PCT/US2006/060771, dated Dec. 3, 2010, 7 pages.
- Supplementary European Search Report, PCT Application No. PCT/US2006/060771, dated Dec. 21, 2010, 1 page.
- Luk, W., et al. “Incremental Development of Hardware Packet Filters”, Proc. International Conference on Engineering of Reconfigurable Systems and Algorithms (ERSA). Jan. 1, 2001. pp. 115-118. XP055049950. Retrieved from the Internet: URL:www.doc.ic.ac.uk/-sy99/c1.ps.
- Georgopoulos, C. et al., “A Protocol Processing Architecture Backing TCP/IP-based Security Applications in High Speed Networks”. Interworking 2000. Oct. 1, 2000. XP055049972. Bergen. Norway Available online at <URL:http://pelopas.uop.gr/-fanis/html—files/pdf—files/papers/invited/I2—IW2002.pdf>.
- “Network Processor Designs for Next-Generation Networking Equipment”. White Paper Ezchip Technologies. XX. XX. Dec. 27, 1999. pages 1-4. XP002262747.
- Segal, Richard, et al. “Spam Guru: An Enterprise Anti-Spam Filtering System”, IBM, 2004 (7 pages).
- Yang et al., “An Example-Based Mapping Method for Text Categorization and Retrieval”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Jul. 1994, vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 252-277.
- Nilsson, Niles J., “Introduction to Machine Learning, an Early Draft of a Proposed Textbook”, Nov. 3, 1998; XP055050127; available online at <URL http://robotics.stanford.edu/˜nilsson/MLBOOK. pdf >.
- Androutsopoulos, Ion et al., “Learning to Filter Spam E-Mail: A Comparison of a Naive Bayesian and a Memory-Based Approach”; Proceedings of the Workshop “Machine Learning and Textual Information Access”; 4th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD-2000). Sep. 1, 2000 [XP055050141] Lyon, France; available online at <URL http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0009/0009009.pdf>.
- Rennie, J D M, “iFile: An application of Machine Learning to E-Mail Filtering”; Workshop on Text Mining; Aug. 1, 2000. [XP002904311]. pp. 1-6.
- Lewis et al., “A Comparison of Two Learning Algorithms for Text Categorization”, Third Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, Apr. 11-13, 1994, pp. 81-92.
- Sahami, “Learning Limited Dependence Bayesian Classifiers”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 335-338, 1996.
- Lewis, “An Evaluation of Phrasal and Clustered Representations on a Text Categorization Task”, 15th Ann Int'l SIGIR, Jun. 1992, pp. 37-50.
- Michell, “Machine Learning” (Book), 1997, pp. 180-184.
- Cohen, “Learning Rules that Classify E-mail”, pp. 1-8; Conference Machine Learning in Information Access-Spring Symposium-Technical Report-American Association for Artificial Intelligence SSS, AAAI Press, Mar. 1996.
- Koller, et al., “Hierarchically classifying documents using very few words”, in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 1997.
- Li et. al., “Classification of Text Documents”, The Computer Journal, vol. 41, No. 8, 1998, pp. 537-546.
- Palme et. al., “Issues when designing filters in messaging systems”, 19 Computer Communications, 1996, pp. 95-101.
- Joachins, “Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features”, Machine Learning: ECML-98, Apr. 1998, pp. 1-14.
- Iwayama et al., “Hierarchical Bayesian Clustering for Automatic Text Classification”, Department of Computer Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, ISSN 0918-2802, Aug. 1995, 10 pages.
- Spertus, “Smokey: Automatic Recognition of Hostile Messages”, Innovative Applications 1997, pp. 1058-1065.
- Schutze, “A Comparison of Classifiers and Document Representations for the Routing Problem”, pp. 229-237; Publication 1996.
- Takkinen et al., “CAFE: A Conceptual Model for Managing Information in Electronic Mail”, Proc. 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1998, pp. 44-53.
- Yang et. al., “A Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Text Categorization”, Machine learning—International Workshop Then Conference, p. 412-420, Jul. 1997.
- Cranor et. al., “Spam!”, Communications of The ACM, vol. 41, No. 8, Aug. 1998, pp. 74-83.
- LeFebvre, “Sendmail and Spam”, Performance Computing, Aug. 1998, pp. 55-58.
- Ranum et. Al, “Implementing a Generalized Tool for Network Monitoring”, Lisa Xi, Oct. 26-31, 1997, pp. 1-8.
- “Method for Automatic Contextual Transposition Upon Receipt of item of Specified Criteria” printed Feb. 1994 in IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 37, No. 2B, p. 333.
- Koller et al., “Toward Optimal Feature Selection”, Machine Learning: Proc. of the Thirteenth International Conference, 1996.
- Avery, “MIMEsweeper defuses virus network, 'net mail bombs”, info World, May 20, 1996, vol. 12, No. 21, p. N1.
- Wilkerson, “Stomping out mail viruses”, in PC Week, Jul. 15, 1996, p. N8.
- Serenelli et al., “Securing Electronic Mail Systems”, Communications-Fusing Command Control and Intelligence: MILCOM '921992, pp. 677-680.
- Kramer et. al., “Integralis' Minesweeper defuses E-mail bombs”, PC Week, Mar. 18, 1996, p. N17-N23.
- Ranum et. al., “A Toolkit and Methods for Internet Firewalls”, Proc. of USENIX Summer 1994 Technical ConferenceJun. 6-10, 1994, pp. 37-44.
- McGhie, “Firewall Systems: The Next Generation”, Integration issues in Large Commerical Media Delivery Systems: Proc. of SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, Oct. 23-24, 1995, pp. 270-281.
- Rose et. al., “Design of the TTI Prototype Trusted Mail Agent”, Computer Message Systems-85: Proc. of the IFIP TC 6 International Symposium on Computer Message Systems, Sep. 5-7, 1985, pp. 377-399.
- Greenwald et. al., “Designing an Academic Firewall: Policy, Practice, and Experience with SURF”, Proc. of the 1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems Security, 1996, pp. 1-14.
- Tresse et. al., “X Through the Firewall, and Other Application Relays”, Proc. of the USENIX Summer 1993 Technical Conference, Jun. 21-25, 1993, pp. 87-99.
- Bryan, “Firewalls for Sale”, BYTE, Apr. 1995, pp. 99-104.
- Cheswick et al., “A DNS Filter and Switch for Packett-filtering Gateways”, Proc. of the Sixth Annual USENIX Security Symposium: Focusing on Applications of Cryptography, Jul. 22-25, 1996, pp. 15-19.
- Kahn, “Safe Use of X Window System Protocol Across a Firewall”, Proc. of the Fifth USENIX UNIX Security Symposium, Jun. 5-7, 1995, pp. 105-116.
- Pavlou et al., “Automating the OSI to Internet Management Conversion Through the Use of an Object-Oriented Platform”, Proc. of the IFIP TC6/WG6.4 International Conference on Advanced Information Processing Techniques for Lan and Man Management, Apr. 7-9, 1993, pp. 245-260.
- Krishnaswamy et al—Verity: A QoS Metric for Selecting Web Services and Providers, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering Workshops (WISEW'03), IEEE, 2004.
- Kamvar et al., The EigenTrust Algorithm for Reputation Management in P2P Networks, ACM, WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, May 20-24, 2003, pp. 640-651.
- Blum, Richard, Open Source E-Mail Security, Sams XP009166200, ISBN 978-0-672-32237-2, pp. 139-158.
- Clayton, Richard, “Good Practice for Combating Unsolicited Bulk Email,” Demon Internet, May 18, 1999 (16 pages).
- Smith, “A Secure Email Gateway (Building an RCAS External Interface)”, in Tenth Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Dec. 5-9, 1994, pp. 202-211.
- Wiegel, “Secure External References in Multimedia Email Messages”, 3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications SecurityMar. 14-16, 1996, pp. 11-18.
- Leech et. al., Memo entitled “SOCKS Protocol Version 5”, Standards Track, Mar. 1996, pp. 1-9.
- Farrow, “Securing the Web: fire walls, proxy, servers, and data driven attacks”, InfoWorld, Jun. 19, 1995, vol. 17, No. 25, p. 103.
- Ando, Ruo, “Real-time neural detection with network capturing”, Study report from Information Processing Society of Japan, vol. 2002, No. 12, IPSIG SIG Notes, Information Processing Society of Japan, 2002, Feb. 15, 2002, p. 145-150.
- Aikawa, Narichika, “Q&A Collection: Personal computers have been introduced to junior high schools and accessing to the Internet has been started; however, we want to avoid the students from accessing harmful information. What can we do?”, DOS/V Power Report, vol. 8, No. 5, Japan, Impress Co., Ltd., May 1, 1998, p. 358 to 361.
- Abika.com, “Trace IP address, email or IM to owner or user” http://www.abika.com/help/IPaddressmap.htm, 3 pp. (Jan. 25, 2006).
- Abika.com, “Request a Persons Report”, http://www.abika.com/forms/Verifyemailaddress.asp, 1 p. (Jan. 26, 2006).
- Lough et al., “A Short Tutorial on Wireless LANs and IEEE 802.11”, printed on May 27, 2002, in the IEEE Computer Society's Student Newsletter, Summer 1997, vol. 5, No. 2.
- Feitelson et al., “Self-Tuning Systems”, Mar./Apr. 1999, IEEE, 0740-7459/99, pp. 52-60.
- Anklesaria, F. et al., “The Internet Gopher Protocol”, RFC 1436, Mar. 1993.
- Berners-Lee, T. et al., “Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax”, RFC 2396, Aug. 1998.
- Crispin, M., “Internet Message Access Protocol—Version 4rev1”, RFC 2060, Dec. 1996.
- Franks, J. et al., “HITP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication”, RFC 2617, Jun. 1999.
- Klensin, J. et al., “SMTP Service Extensions”, RFC 1869, Nov. 1995.
- Moats, R., “URN Syntax”, RFC 2141, May 1997.
- Moore, K., “SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications”, RFC 1891, Jan. 1996.
- Myers, J. et al., “Post Office Protocol—Version 3”, RFC 1939, May 1996.
- Nielsen, H., et al., “An HTTP Extension Framework”, RFC 2774, Feb. 2000.
- Postel, J., “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol”, RFC 821, Aug. 1982.
- IronMail™ Version 2.1, User's Manual. © 2001, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 114 pp. [Cited in U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067].
- IronMail™ version 2.5, User's Manual, © 2001, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 195 pp. [Cited in U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067].
- IronMail™ version 2.5.1, User's Manual, © 2001, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 203 pp. [Cited in U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067].
- IronMail™ version 3.0, User's Manual, © 2002, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 280 pages.
- IronMail™ version 3.0.1, User's Manual, © 2002, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 314 pages.
- IronMailTM version 3.1, User's Manual, published by CipherTrust, Inc., 397 pages [Cited in U.S. Appl. No. 10/361,067].
- Website: Exchange Business Information Safely & Quickly—Without Compromising Security or Reliability—Atabok Secure Data Solutions, Feb. 19, 2002, 2 pages.
- Braden, R., “Requirements for Internet Hosts—Application and Support”, RFC 1123, Oct. 1989, 98 pages.
- Fielding, R. et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1”, RFC 2616, Jun. 1999, 114 pages.
- Yuchun Tang, “Granular Support Vector Machines Based on Granular Computing, Soft Computing and Statistical Learning.” Georgia State University: May 2006.
- Drucker et al; “Support Vector Machines for Spam Categorization”; 1999; IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks; vol. 10, No. 5; pp. 1048-1054.
- Graf et al.; “Parallel Support Vector Machines: The Cascade SVM”; 2005; pp. 1-8.
- Rokach, Lior et al.; “Decomposition methodology for classification tasks”; 2005; Springer-Verlag London Limited; Pattern Analysis & Applications; pp. 257-271.
- Wang, Jigang et al.; “Training Data Selection for Support Vector Machines”; 2005; ICNC 2005, LNCS 3610; pp. 554-564.
- Skurichina, Marina et al.; Bagging, Boosting and the Random Subspce Method for Linear Classifiers; 2002; Springer-Verlag London Limited; pp. 121-135.
- Tao, Dacheng et al.; “Asymmetric Bagging and Random Subspace for Support Vector Machines-Based Relevance Feedback in Image Retrieval”; 2006; IEEE Computer Society; pp. 1088-1099.
- Kotsiantis, S. B. et al.; “Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques”; 2006; Springer; Artificial Intelligence Review; pp. 159-190.
- Kane, Paul J. et al. “Quantification of Banding, Streaking and Grain in Flat Field Images”, 2000.
- Kim, JiSoo et al. “Text Locating from Natural Scene Images Using Image Intensities”, 2005 IEEE.
- Gupta, et al., “A Reputation System for Peer-to-Peer Networks,” ACM (2003).
- Golbeck, et al., “Inferring Reputation on the Semantic Web,” ACM, 2004.
- Okumura, Motonobu, “E-Mail Filtering by Relation Learning”, IEICE Technical Report, vol. 103, No. 603, the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Jan. 19, 2004, vol. 103, p. 1-5 [English Abstract Only].
- Inoue, Naomi, “Computer and Communication: Recent State of Filtering Software,” ISPJ Magazine, vol. 40, No. 10, Japan, The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Oct. 15, 1999, vol. 40 p. 1007-1010 [English Abstract Only].
- Australian Patent Office Examination Report in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2003230606 mailed on Apr. 3, 2008.
- Australian Patent Office Examination Report No. 1 in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2009203095 mailed on Oct. 12, 2010.
- Australian Patent Office Examination Report No. 2 in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2009203095 mailed on Feb. 2, 2012.
- Australian Patent Office Examination Report No. 3 in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 200903095 mailed on Mar. 28, 2012.
- Canadian Intellectual Property Office Examination Report in Canadian Patent Application Serial No. 2478299 mailed on Jul. 9, 2010.
- European Supplementary Search Report for EP Application No. 03723691.6, dated Jun. 29, 2010, 6 pages.
- European Patent Office Action for EP Application No. 03723691.6, dated Oct. 12, 2010, 6 pages.
- European Patent Office Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC in EP Application Serial No. 03723691.3 mailed on Jan. 30, 2013.
- European Patent Office Search Report and Opinion in EP Application Serial No. 12189404.2 mailed on Jan. 30, 2013.
- European Patent Office Search Report and Opinion in EP Application Serial No. 12189407.5 mailed on Jan. 28, 2013.
- European Patent Office Search Report and Opinion in EP Application Serial No. 12189412.5 mailed on Jan. 30, 2013.
- European Patent Office Search Report and Opinion in EP Application Serial No. 12189413.3 mailed on Jan. 24, 2013.
- PCT International Search Report in PCT International Application Serial No. PCT/US2003/007042 mailed on Nov. 13, 2003.
- PCT International Preliminary Examination Report in PCT International Application Serial No. PCT/US2003/007042 mailed on Jan. 29, 2004.
- Australian Patent Office Examination Report in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2005304883 mailed on Apr. 16, 2010.
- Canadian Patent Office Action in Canadian Patent Application Serial No. 2586709 mailed on Mar. 20, 2013.
- China, State Intellectual Property Office, P.R. China, First Office Action in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 20050046047 mailed on Mar. 1, 2010.
- China, State Intellectual Property Office, P.R. China, Second Office Action in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 20050046047 mailed on Dec. 7, 2010.
- China, State Intellectual Property Office, P.R. China, Decision on Rejection in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 20050046047 mailed on Jun. 27, 2011.
- European Patent Office Supplementary Search Report and Written Opinion in EP Application Serial No. 05823134.1 mailed on Jun. 3, 2013.
- Examiner's Report for Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2006315184 dated Mar. 31, 2010.
- Canadian Office Action in Canadian Patent Application Serial No. 2,628,189 mailed on Dec. 8, 2011.
- Canadian Office Action in Canadian Patent Application Serial No. 2,628,189 mailed on Jan. 31, 2013.
- First Office Action for Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 200680050707.7 dated Mar. 9, 2010.
- European Patent Office Search Report dated Nov. 26, 2010 and Written Opinion in EP Application Serial No. 06839820.May 2416 mailed on Dec. 3, 2010.
- European Patent Office Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC 06839820.5-2416 mailed on Oct. 18, 2011 (including Annex EP Search Report dated Nov. 26, 2010).
- PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT International Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2006/060771 mailed on Feb. 12, 2008.
- PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT International Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2006/060771 mailed on May 14, 2008.
- Australian Patent Office First Examination Report and SIS in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2008207924 mailed on Dec. 14, 2011.
- State Intellectual Property Office, P.R. China First Office Action dated Nov. 9, 2011 in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 200880009672.1.
- State Intellectual Property Office, P.R. China Second Office Action dated Aug. 9, 2012 in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 200880009672.1.
- State Intellectual Property Office, P.R. China Third Office Action dated Nov. 9, 2012 in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 200880009672.1.
- European Patent Office Invitation Pursuant to Rule 62a(1) EPC mailed on Oct. 11, 2011.
- PCT International Search Report in PCT International Application Serial No. PCT/US2008/051869 dated Jun. 4, 2008.
- PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT International Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2008/051869 mailed on Jul. 28, 2009.
- Australian Patent Office Patent Examination Report No. 1 issued in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2008207930 on Dec. 9, 2011.
- Australian Patent Office Examination Report No. 2 issued in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2008207930 on Sep. 10, 2012.
- China, State Intellectual Property Office, P.R. China, First Office Action in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 200880009762.0 mailed on Sep. 14, 2011.
- EPO Extended Search Report and Opinion in EP Application Serial No. 08728178.8 mailed on Aug. 2, 2012.
- EPO Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC in EP Application Serial No. 08847431.7-2416 mailed on Dec. 11, 2012.
- EPO Supplementary European Search Report in EP Application Serial No. 08847431.7-2416 mailed on Dec. 3, 2012.
- PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2008/082771, mailed on Aug. 24, 2009.
- PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2008/082771, mailed on May 11, 2010.
- Australian Patent Office Examination Report No. 1 issued in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2008323784 issue on Jul. 13, 2012.
- PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT Application Serial No. PCT/2008/082781 mailed on Aug. 7, 2009.
- International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT International Application Serial No. PCT/US2008/082781 mailed on May 11, 2010.
- Australian Patent Office First Examination Report in Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2009251584 dated Feb. 7, 2013.
- China Patent Office First Office Action in Chinese Patent Application Serial No. 200980120009.3 mailed on Mar. 26, 2013.
- EP Supplementary European Search Report in EP Application Serial No. 09755480.2-2416 mailed on Dec. 3, 2012.
- EPO Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC (Supplementary Search Report) in EP Application Serial No. 09755480.2-2416 mailed on Dec. 11, 2012.
Type: Grant
Filed: Jul 19, 2011
Date of Patent: Oct 1, 2013
Patent Publication Number: 20120271890
Assignee: McAfee, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA)
Inventors: Paul Judge (Atlanta, GA), Dmitri Alperovitch (Atlanta, GA), Matt Moyer (Atlanta, GA), Sven Krasser (Atlanta, GA)
Primary Examiner: Kaveh Abrishamkar
Application Number: 13/185,653
International Classification: G06F 15/16 (20060101); G06F 12/14 (20060101);